Toward a Multi-Planetary Future - Part 8

Utilizing human-factors–focused analysis of the previously proposed lunar and Martian crews, explicitly mapped to the selection criteria established earlier, here is a professional inference based on publicly documented training pathways, mission roles, career choices, and performance environments typical of astronauts and analog-mission personnel. 

The goal is to answer one question:

Do these individuals, as a group, plausibly satisfy the psychological, social, and behavioral demands of permanent off-world habitation?

Note that not all agencies astronauts were added to this analysis. 
There are many others who would be qualified but the selections used were to
provide a sampling of  desirable traits, experiences and human nature.

Psychological and Behavioral Profile Analysis of Proposed Lunar and Martian Crews

1-Evaluation Framework

Each individual is assessed against five critical dimensions derived from the prior article:

1. Emotional regulation under stress
2. Social compatibility and conflict management
3. Autonomous decision-making
4. Adaptability and learning capacity
5. Leadership without dominance

No one is expected to score maximally in all categories; crew balance matters more than individual perfection.

2. NASA Astronauts

Jonny Kim (NASA) — Commander (Moon & Mars)

Profile signals

• Navy SEAL background → prolonged exposure to high-risk, ambiguous environments

• Medical doctor → calm, structured decision-making under pressure

• Astronaut training → demonstrated long-duration confinement tolerance

Psychological strengths

• Exceptional stress modulation

• Non-ego-centric leadership style

• High trustworthiness in crisis triage

Risk factors

• Potential over-reliance by crew (mitigated by shared leadership design)

Assessment 🟢 Extremely strong candidate for autonomous command, especially on Mars.

Jessica Watkins (NASA) — Deputy Commander / Science Lead

Profile signals

• Geologist → patience, observational discipline

• ISS mission experience → cooperative long-duration performance

• Public communications style → calm, collaborative, reflective

Psychological strengths

• High tolerance for monotony

• Strong integrator between technical and human domains

• Likely strong mentor figure

Risk factors

• None evident at systems level

Assessment 🟢 Excellent stabilizing influence and deputy leadership presence.

Raja Chari (NASA) — Systems / Power Lead

Profile signals

• Test pilot → decisive, structured cognition

• Command experience → procedural discipline

• Known for low-drama professional demeanor

Psychological strengths

• Clear decision authority under pressure

• Comfort with irreversible decisions

Risk factors

• Test pilots can trend toward procedural rigidity (manageable)

Assessment 🟢 Highly reliable in system-critical roles.

3. Canadian Space Agency

Jeremy Hansen (CSA) — Robotics / Operations

Profile signals

• Military background

• Long-term Artemis integration

• Extensive joint-agency training

Psychological strengths

• Coalition mindset

• High tolerance for multinational command ambiguity

• Low-ego operational style

Risk factors

• None evident

Assessment 🟢 Ideal connective tissue between agencies and crew cultures.

Joshua Kutryk (CSA) — Systems & Automation

Profile signals

• Engineer-test pilot hybrid

• Known for methodical reasoning

• Not publicly dominant or performative

Psychological strengths

• Strong human-machine interface intuition

• Likely calm in failure scenarios

Risk factors

• Less public long-duration flight data (addressed via simulations)

Assessment 🟢 Strong technical generalist with acceptable human-factor profile.

4. European Space Agency / UK

Andreas Mogensen (ESA) — Habitat & Systems

Profile signals

• ISS commander experience

• Calm public demeanor

• Known for collaborative leadership

Psychological strengths

• Proven long-duration interpersonal stability

• Experience managing crew stress dynamics

Risk factors

• None significant

Assessment 🟢 High-confidence choice for deep-space habitation roles.

Sophie Adenot (ESA) — Science & ISRU

Profile signals

• Fighter pilot + astronaut training

• Demonstrated adaptability across domains

Psychological strengths

• High cognitive flexibility

• Comfortable switching between leadership and support roles

Risk factors

• Less spaceflight time than senior astronauts (acceptable for Moon, later Mars)

Assessment

🟢 Strong candidate with growth trajectory.

Raphaël Liégeois (ESA) — Communications / Coordination

Profile signals

• Psychology and engineering background

• Explicit focus on human systems

Psychological strengths

• Meta-awareness of group dynamics

• Likely effective mediator

Risk factors

• Limited operational authority experience (balanced by role)

Assessment 🟢 Exceptionally well-matched to Mars communication-delay realities.

Rosemary Coogan (UK/ESA) — Psychological Stability & Culture

Profile signals

• Strong survival training record

• Academic background

• Repeated high-stress team simulations

Psychological strengths

• Emotional intelligence

• Likely informal morale leader

Risk factors

• None evident

Assessment 🟢 Critical non-technical stabilizer for long-duration crews.

5. Commercial / Hybrid Candidate

Anna Menon (NASA/SpaceX) — Medical & Human Factors

Profile signals

• Biomedical engineering

• Mission operations leadership

• Polaris-related experience

Psychological strengths

• Systems-level thinking applied to human health

• Comfortable navigating organizational complexity

Risk factors

• Balancing institutional loyalties (manageable)

Assessment 🟢 Ideal bridge between medical autonomy and systems reliability.

6. Alyssa Carson (“NASA Blueberry”) — Explicit Assessment

Current status

• Not an astronaut

• No agency selection

• No operational flight experience

• No long-duration confinement record

Psychological unknowns

• Stress tolerance under real mission conditions

• Group dynamics under deprivation

• Authority response and decision-making under irreversible risk

Assessment 🔴 Not currently eligible for permanent base assignment.

Important clarification:

This is not a judgment of potential, but of readiness. Under the selection framework defined earlier, visibility, aspiration, and training programs do not substitute for agency-validated behavioral data.

I have included Alyssa in this analysis to point out that even though an individual may not at this time be currently classed as ready by the standard metrics used here, the one thing that Alyssa has is drive. Starting from a very early age Alyssa has shown a singular drive to work towards being ready and that more than anything else will be required in any off-world assignments in the future. The "proving" portion of the metrics never comes until an agency chooses to look at a person.

If we are to ramp up our off-world intentions it will be incumbent upon the agencies to look beyond their usual pool of potential military or scientific candidates at those who have the drive and the applicable skills to be considered. Always looking within for candidates will in itself create a stagnation in the candidate pool and that could lead to failure of the human integration of versatility into the crew compliments.

7. Crew-Level Dynamics Analysis

Strengths of the Proposed Teams

• No single dominant personality

• Multiple calm authority figures

• High redundancy in emotional regulation

• Cross-cultural competence

• Strong mediation capacity

Notable Absences

• No high-narcissism “hero” profiles

• No ideologically rigid personalities

• No lone-wolf specialists

This is intentional.

8. Final Judgment

Lunar Crew:

🟢 Well-balanced, resilient, adaptable, suitable for early permanence.

Martian Crew: 🟢 Among the strongest plausible human systems ever assembled for autonomous survival.

These teams prioritize psychological survivability over prestige, which is precisely what permanent off-world habitation demands.

NEXT